]]>Snapchat is telling people how many views their “Our Story” clip receives if they make one in the collective, crowdsourced section. Based on people I’ve interviewed, it appears Snapchat’s Our Stories are hitting viewing numbers that television’s most popular shows see, although it’s tough to get a clear picture of Snapchat’s metrics.

One user’s snap was viewed almost 25 million times after appearing in New York’s Snowmaggedon “Our Story.”

A few weeks ago, a friend sent me a Snapchat screenshot of someone’s contribution to New York’s Snowmageddon “Our Story.” The app showed them that it was viewed 25 million times and users took a screenshot of it 5,000 times.

I found other “Our Story” contributors who also saw views in the tens of millions, one of whom saw views as high as 27 million. For the Snapchat newbies, “Our Story” is a collection of snaps submitted by users about certain events, like music festivals and holidays. These last 24 hours before disappearing.

To put “27 million views” in context, Sunday’s Oscars’ views averaged 36.6 million people in the U.S., according to Nielsen ratings. That’s the Oscars — one of television’s most popular live events. Breaking Bad, which famously smashed viewership records in its season finale, averaged 10.3 million viewers for that episode. The caveat for both of these numbers is that Nielsen ratings aren’t always on point, but they at least give a ballpark estimate.

After this story ran, Snapchat reached out and clarified that these are unique user views — in other words, the “Our Story” view number isn’t inflated by people watching the story multiple times. It’s the number of actual users who viewed it. Snapchat’s most recently rumored monthly active user number is 100 million.

As far as I can tell, Snapchat’s “Our Story” metric hasn’t been reported yet. Prior to publishing, a Snapchat spokesperson wouldn’t confirm the numbers with me. She said the only number Snapchat is currently releasing publicly about story views is that one billion stories are viewed a day, which includes individual users’ stories. As a result, it doesn’t give us a good sense of Snapchat’s ability to rival television with its “second screen” features like Our Story and Discover.

After publishing, the company wouldn’t go on record confirming that they’re seeing this amount of views. They did however said the numbers sent to users who get a snap into a story are accurate.

I hopped on the phone with the 25 million Snowmageddon “Our Story” contributor, who wanted to remain anonymous, and they confirmed the data. I foundnineotherexamplesonTwitter of people who posted similar numbers after their snaps made it in an Our Story. Almost half of them were over 10 million views.

It’s worth noting that some of these people published their screenshots earlier in the day, and they continued accumulating views as the 24-hour cycle went on. It’s also worth noting that people whose snaps appear earlier in the collaborative story likely see much higher views that those whose snaps appear later.

Dana Krangel’s snap of Wearhaus’s social headphones was viewed by over 27 million people after it appeared in the CES “Techies in Vegas” Snapchat story

Dana Krangel, a marketing manager for a social headphones company, landed the first snap on the CES “Techies in Vegas” story. It saw over 27 million views. “I didn’t even realize it made it to the Our Story until all these random people from my past started posting on my Facebook wall,” Krangel told me. “My sister doesn’t have Snapchat and our 13-yr-old niece sent it to her. Someone in New Zealand even tweeted it at me.”

]]>Google still hasn’t released any sales numbers for its Chromecast streaming stick, but Google’s Chief Business officer Omid Kordestani updated investors on one metric during the company’s Q4 call Thursday: Chromecast reached one billion cast sessions last week, Kordestani said.

This means that Chromecast usage seems to be accelerating: Google VP of product management Mario Queiroz told us at our Structure Connect back in October that Chromecast had reached 650 million cast sessions. Three months before that, the number of sessions was at 400 million.

Google defines a “cast session” as a user pressing the cast button within an Android, iOS or web app. In other words: Streaming multiple YouTube videos to your TV one after another counts as just one session.

Google put a lot of energy into international expansion for Chromecast in 2014. At CES, it also introduced Google Cast for audio, adding casting to connected loudspeakers from Denon, LG and Sony. Queiroz told me at Structure Connect that the company plans to introduce a V2 of Chromecast in the future.

1.5 billion a day is a huge number. Multiply it by 365 days of the year and Vine is seeing more than half a trillion loops yearly.

But it comes with a caveat. Vine videos are set to repeat themselves automatically, so 1.5 billion loops doesn’t represent the amount of individual, unique views by new people. If someone leaves their feed unattended, the views can multiply quickly.

The most recent user number Vine released was 40 million registered users, in August 2013. The company notably left out monthly active users and as far as I can tell it hasn’t released new user metrics since. I’ve reached out to the company to confirm and will update if I hear back. It’s possible that user growth itself has stagnated on the application even as its video plays have grown. Lots of people consume Vines other places than the app, watching them on Facebook, Twitter, or even YouTube.

Although the company hasn’t introduced advertising, brands pay the top Vine celebrities, the stars with the most followers, to do product placement in their videos or even outright mini commercials. The six second limitation to the video has spurred new, creative forms of expression from stop motion art to its own genre of slapstick comedy.

As I’ve written about, the earliest Vine stars are graduating from the application, starting to land Hollywood TV show parts and record deals, parlaying their teen social media stardom to a broader, more mainstream audience. Vine’s owner Twitter hasn’t entirely managed to keep up. It’s ignored some of its biggest celebrities, perhaps to keep the app focused on average users instead of just highlighting the famous faces. But its better-funded competitors, like Facebook and Instagram, have started wooing the key content creators in Twitter’s absence.

In typical Twitter fashion, the Vine product has managed to grow in spite of its parent company’s potential pitfalls. As it rounds its two year mark, the application and its stars show no sign of slowing.

]]>One of the great ironies of the online media business is that there are more ways to measure reader activity than there have probably ever been in the history of human communication — pageviews, unique visitors, time spent, clickthroughs, etc. — but no one can seem to agree on which measure accurately reflects the value that content creates. It’s like quantum mechanics: Our tools have never been better, but the thing we are trying to measure still slips from our grasp.

A sense of frustration at this state of affairs seeps out of a recent post by Evan Williams, the former co-founder and CEO of Twitter and founder of Medium, the site that is part content platform and part traditional publisher (something he also recently posted some thoughts about, after some criticism from Pando Daily’s Sarah Lacy). The industry still seems obsessed with large numbers such as pageviews or unique visitors, he says, but this results in sites and services that are “a mile wide and an inch deep.”

“We literally say one company or service is bigger based on a single number?—?specifically, number of people who have used it in the last 30 days. Even without even getting into how use is defined, this is dumb.”

Pictures vs. tweets

This is particularly obvious when comparing services like Twitter and Instagram, says Williams, returning to the scene of an earlier argument. As he put it in his original comment to Fortune, Twitter is “what we wanted it to be. It’s this realtime information network… important stuff breaks on Twitter and world leaders have conversations on Twitter. If that’s happening, I frankly don’t give a shit if Instagram has more people looking at pretty pictures.”

His point, Williams says, isn’t that Instagram is somehow less valuable because it involves pictures, but that the two services are trying to do completely different things, and so measuring them with the same blunt instrument — whether it’s called unique visitors or monthly average users — tells you virtually nothing of any value about their likelihood of success.

Even replacing those kinds of crude measurements with something like time spent probably doesn’t help with services like Twitter, Williams notes, since it is somewhat similar to Google, in that part of what it does is link to things, and thereby send people elsewhere. How does one measure the value of that?

“Twitter is as much utility as media and part of its benefit is being incredibly concise?—?plus, a lot of its purpose, like Google, is to point people off to other places. So optimizing for time spent probably wouldn’t make sense.”

When it comes to sites like Medium, however, looking at time spent gets closer to what they are trying to achieve, Williams says — so the site looks at a metric it calls “total time reading,” which is similar to what Chartbeat terms “total engaged time” and Upworthy refers to as “attention minutes.” These metrics are an attempt to discover real engaged users, as opposed to the drive-by click traffic that is never going to return.

Time spent vs. clicks

In Medium’s case, for example, a recent post that went viral on Facebook drove traffic numbers through the roof: “By number of unique visitors to medium.com, we blew it out of the park,” says Williams, “but the vast majority of those visitors stayed a fraction of what our average visitor stays, and they read hardly anything.” And so the company was much happier with a week in October when the unique visitor count was 40 percent lower, but time spent was 50 percent higher.

Although he touches on it somewhat — where he notes that Wall Street continues to value companies based on outdated metrics like monthly average user — the Medium founder doesn’t really grapple with the underlying cause of the media’s obsession with pageviews or unique visitors: namely, the fact that the advertising industry continues to focus on those raw numbers, regardless of whether they actually denote anything of value, because the ad industry is arguably even more backward than the media.

There are signs of hope here and there, with Chartbeat pushing the time-spent measurement and being accredited to do so for advertising (which will make the metric more appealing for both publishers and advertisers) and certain publications like the Financial Times and The Economistconvincing ad agencies to go with time-spent measurement instead of raw visitors. But it’s going to take more than that to shift the industry towards measuring actual engagement rather than the equivalent of window-shopping or foot traffic.

The biggest problem is that there is no single “God metric,” as BuzzFeed founder Jonah Peretti put it in a recent interview — no over-arching measurement that both describes value and is easy for advertisers to understand. It changes depending on what the content is and what the goal is. As sociologist William Cameron put it: “Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.” That may be hard for advertisers and publishers to accept, but it’s true.

]]>While some progress has been made in getting web publishers and advertisers to stop thinking about pageviews or other traffic-focused metrics, and start thinking about measuring actual attention or engagement, there is still one big problem, according to Chartbeat founder and CEO Tony Haile — everyone has their own way of measuring those things, and no one is willing to share the secrets that lie inside the black box they use to do so.

In an attempt to force a change to that state of affairs, Chartbeat announced on Monday that it is making public all of the metrics, standards and methods of measurement it uses internally — including a detailed breakdown of their weaknesses and limitations.

In an interview before the announcement was made about the company opening up its measurement approach, the Chartbeat CEO said he wants to try and get everyone in the industry to share as much of their data and methods as possible. Why? Because it will make online publishing — and the advertising-based business model that continues to fuel it — better in the long run, he said.

I’m in the business of change, I actually want this industry to get better, and I think what will help the industry do that is if we can all be a bit more open and transparent about these things. We’re going to get out there and say this is exactly how we do everything.

Openness builds trust in online numbers

Last month, Chartbeat became the first measurement company to have a metric based on attention accredited by the Media Rating Council, the body that determines what standards can be used to buy and sell advertising online. Now, the company has put the documents and reference material it supplied in order to get accredited — a process that took more than six months worth of interviews and in-depth review of every aspect of the company’s business — and putting them all online where anyone can examine and/or learn from them.

Haile admits that he is fighting an uphill battle when it comes to openness. Historically, measurement and analytics companies have kept their methods to themselves as much as possible, and so have the media and publishing companies that make up most of their clients. In many cases, that’s because the numbers they used were little more than educated guesses at best, and outright smoke and mirrors at worst. As Chartbeat put it in describing its move:

The lack of clarity around how metrics are actually measured, their methodologies, advantages and limitations has led to immense confusion. This opacity has led to publishers and agencies each choosing the vendor that spins the data into the best story, regardless of accuracy, and then fighting over who’s right. That’s a lousy way to do business.

The Chartbeat CEO says he believes that online publishing needs to throw off the covers and get rid of the smoke and mirrors if it wants to succeed as an industry, and so he has decided to make his company an example. Hopefully others will see that openness is better, he said — in part because it allows clients and agencies to trust the numbers they are getting more than if it is a black box. And if everyone shares their data and methods, then everyone benefits.

But couldn’t other companies — especially other competing providers of attention metrics and analytics — simply copy everything that Chartbeat is doing by reading through all the documents it has put online, without opening up about any of their own metrics or methods? Haile admits that they could, and that his decision is risky. But he says that he believes the gamble is worth it, if it helps the industry as a whole succeed. And maybe if he opens up, clients will start asking other companies they work with to do so as well.

]]>For some time now, media companies and content producers of various kinds have been trying to convince the rest of the industry — and especially advertisers — to move away from flawed measurements like pageviews and unique visitors and focus on measuring attention. The Financial Times, the Economist and even viral sites like Upworthy have been at the forefront of this movement, and so has web analytics firm Chartbeat — and now Chartbeat says it has become the first analytics company that is certified to measure reader attention.

Chartbeat CEO Tony Haile says the certification came from the Media Ratings Council, the national standards body that decides what can be used as a currency for advertising in the U.S. After a nine-month auditing process that investigated every part of Chartbeat’s analytics engine, the council said the company is now accredited to measure attention metrics for both display advertising and content.

We’ve been talking for a while now about the attention web, and lots of people have said they liked it as an idea, but it was just an idea. But now it’s official — so now, there can be an attention economy, in which both publishers and advertisers buy and sell attention minutes or metrics as a measurement.

Unlike pageviews, which simply measure whether a page has loaded, or even unique visitors — which some media companies argue are closer to being like physical readers of a newspaper or magazine — attention metrics like “active exposure time,” which Chartbeat tracks, can determine how much time a reader spent with a specific piece of content, by measuring whether they were actually looking at the page.

Chartbeat looks at a variety of factors, Haile said, including what portion of the page is within the viewing window (so it can tell you how far down someone got in the article or piece of content). But the crucial one is to sense whether someone is actually looking at the page, and it does this by tracking movement or interaction — based on the fact the average user touches the mouse or keyboard at least once every 4.8 seconds.

The Financial Times has been using Chartbeat’s “active exposure time” to sell advertisers what it believes is a better measurement of the actual value they are getting, and the Economist has been experimenting with the same thing. Upworthy collaborated with Chartbeat to develop what it calls “attention minutes,” and open-sourced its methodology by uploading its software to Github.

Haile said his intention in promoting the idea of the “attention web” is to help publishers build sustainable businesses around advertising, instead of constantly having to chase eyeballs or clicks in an attempt to generate as many pageviews or visitors as possible:

This gives brands exactly what they want in a transparent way — they want the attention of their audience, and this gives them that in a completely measurable way. And for publishers, they want to know that they’ve created something valuable that holds people’s attention, and this tells them that.

]]>The conventional wisdom is that clickbait is the bane of internet journalism, a kind of desperate pandering by revenue-challenged media companies aimed at racking up eyeballs — driven by the relentless economics of pageview-driven advertising. But what is it really? Everyone thinks they know it when they see it, and Facebook is even trying to ban it from the network, but defining it is harder than it seems. In fact, the dividing line between clickbait and serving the interests of the reader is a lot more blurry than the conventional wisdom suggests.

What got me thinking about this again was a Nieman Lab post by ethnographer Angèle Christin, who has been looking at the impact that audience metrics and analytics have had on digital journalism in the U.S. and France. Christin — a post-doctoral fellow at the New School for Social Research — spent two years observing and interviewing journalists and bloggers about analytics, and studying the way newsrooms are being changed by the web.

Many argue that an obsession with metrics has put journalists on a “hamster wheel” and driven the quality of online journalism to new depths (an argument I’ve tried to refute a number of times), to the point where some media outlets don’t even allow their writers to see the metrics related to their work, for fear of distorting their motives. But in many ways, “clickbait” is just a natural outgrowth of the evolution in journalism from a one-way broadcast approach to a two-way model — in other words, from push to pull, or from supply-driven to demand-driven.

Writing for ourselves vs. writing for readers

In her piece, Christin quotes Richard Darnton, who was a reporter for the New York Times in the 1960s, and wrote about what the news business was like before the internet: in those days, he says, “We really wrote for one another.” As Christin puts it:

Darnton reminds us that, in the printed world, the quality of one’s articles was mostly assessed by one’s peers and superiors. Journalists had somewhat abstract representations of their reading public. The letters to the editor were often left unread. Then came the Internet.

What Darnton describes is an almost completely one-way approach to media — in the old days, news stories and other content were produced because an editor or editors decided they should be, either because they were trying to appeal to certain readers, or because they believed an issue was important and their audience should know about it, or some combination of those two factors. For the most part, what readers were actually interested in, or what they were actually reading (as opposed to what they said they were reading in focus-group surveys) had little or nothing to do with what appeared in a newspaper or magazine.

The ability to see every click, every page load — even the “scroll depth,” or how far down a reader has made it in every story — has completely up-ended that traditional model, not to mention data on where readers come from (increasingly social platforms such as Twitter and Facebook rather than search) and what they choose to share. And that in turn has completely changed how media outlets produce content.

Has this transformation resulted in more clickbait and pandering? Undoubtedly it has. But it has also arguably resulted in more content that readers actually want to read, as opposed to producing reams of newspaper articles that no one ever makes it to the end of, just because some random editor thought it was important. And that’s probably a good thing.

]]>Four and a half years into its existence, Q&A site Quora has finally released an iPad app. It’s been the summer of mobile for the company, from an entirely redesigned Android 2.0 to a new website application that more closely mirrors the mobile experience. The new iPad app tops it off.

The company sees the iPad as the ideal distribution form for the its Q&A’s, which frequently run multiple paragraphs and sometimes include video and photos. Marc Bodnick, Quora‘s head of business and community, told me, “This is the best reading experience for Quora.” So why did the company wait so long to build an iPad app? “Most of our team is focused on quality, so as a result we don’t always get to do things as fast as our readers would like us to do it,” Bodnick said.

Quora has been nothing if not unconventional. The company refuses to conform to what the outside world expects of it — like bringing in revenue — instead staying laser-focused on making quality scale.

Now, it appears to have succeeded. Along with the iPad announcement, CEO Adam D’Angelo released new metrics on the company. It has seen 3x growth in answers per week since the beginning of the year, and it says it expects to see more answers posted in the next twelve months than in its entire history previously — four-plus years. Quora has finally hit the hockey stick curve in its growth cycle.

The obstacle Quora struggled with for much of its existence was making quality scale. The company wouldn’t be worth much if it devolved into Yahoo Answers. Fighting a slide into mediocrity required tedious community upkeep by Quora staff: Filtering out duplicate questions, making sure the best answers were seen and moderating any bullying and negativity.

Now the challenge facing Quora is the same, but bigger. The company hopes to take its site international, with support for multiple languages in different countries. “You can’t share and grow the world’s knowledge if you’re only in English,” Bodnick said. He predicted internationalization efforts would begin in the next year. That means scaling all Quora’s quality endeavors across different cultures and communication barriers, not an easy task. “I don’t think we’ve figured it out yet,” Bodnick admitted.

Quora has put off making money until now — it hasn’t brought in a cent in revenue. Does it plan to keep waiting? “We have not achieved our mission,” Bodnick says. “If we achieve this mission we are confident that the financial opportunities will be very exciting. There’s only so many things you can do at once.”

]]>As media companies and advertisers search for better ways of measuring the effectiveness of content, a lot of attention has been focused on what some like to call “engaged time.” Designed by companies like Chartbeat, the publishing-analytics company, Upworthy — which recently open-sourced its “attention minutes” measurement — and the Financial Times, these metrics try to measure the time that a reader actually spends with a story instead of just tracking clicks. But is engaged time a red herring? ProPublica president and former Wall Street Journal assistant publisher Dick Tofel thinks it might be.

Tofel lays out his argument in an essay he wrote for the Media Impact Project, a venture launched by the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism that’s trying to improve the theory and practice of media measurement.

In a nutshell, Tofel argues that while “engaged time” might be an improvement over blunt or fatally flawed instruments like raw pageviews or even unique visitors, it still suffers from some fairly major problems. For one thing, he says the simple fact that a person spends more time with a specific story doesn’t necessarily mean that they are actually more engaged. It could mean that the story is just really long, or it’s a video clip — and the longest stories aren’t always the ones with the most impact.

“The metric implicitly posits that longer stories — assuming they are read for longer periods — are more valuable, more engaging, more salient than shorter stories. But our experience teaches us that this is not the case. The most memorable stories are not always (or perhaps even frequently) the longest.”

Most content gets no attention at all

Tofel also argues that encouraging media companies to focus on engaged time or “attention minutes” could cause publishers to lengthen the content they are producing, in the same way that focusing on pageviews drove some media companies to spend all their time pumping out tiny chunks of viral clickbait. In other words, the metric itself could have unintended consequences: “Do we really want reporters and editors to undertake a constant effort to take up more of a reader’s time, to always lengthen stories where feasible… to use more video simply because people may mindlessly watch?”

And what do some of the companies pushing the idea of engaged time or attention minutes have to say? The Media Impact Project has gotten essays in response from Chartbeat CEO Tony Haile as well as Daniel Mintz from Upworthy, Anthony Hitchings from the Financial Times and Jonathan Stray of the Overview Project, a document-mining system the Associated Press is building. Haile says he agrees with Tofel that measuring the actual impact of a specific story is difficult, but argues that the idea behind engaged time is somewhat different:

“The fight is not between the short form content that receives 30 seconds of attention and the long form that receives 300… the fight is with content that does not receive any attention at all. Simply distinguishing the value of content able to capture a meaningful expression of attention from that which does not would have more impact on the economics of digital publishing than anything else.”

By implication, there are two main strategies publishers can follow, Haile says — they can either create great short-form content that gets people to return regularly, or they can create long-form stories that get readers to engage for a long time. The only people who suffer under this scenario, he says “are those who create content that no one reads and to which no one returns.”

Perhaps there is no holy grail

Jonathan Stray says like Tofel, he is unconvinced that engaged time is the holy grail of reader measurement: “Journalism is very much a multi-stakeholder endeavor, so why should we imagine that a single number can capture all aspects of the activity?” Daniel Mintz of Upworthy, meanwhile, says he agrees that engaged time isn’t the ultimate barometer for media measurement, but argues that it is another tool that can be used in addition to all of the existing metrics in order to get a better handle on what readers are doing and why:

“We’re not advocating… that publishers and advertisers should ignore pageviews and uniques and shares, in favor of attention as the only metric that matters. Instead, we’re arguing that right now, we measure the input (pageviews and uniques) and the output (shares) of a system with no real understanding of what is happening in-between. Measuring attention provides invaluable insight into that gap between input and output.”

It’s more than a little ironic that while publishing online provides an almost infinite ability to measure every twitch and click and eye movement of the reader, media companies and advertisers aren’t really that much closer to figuring out how to tell whether what they are publishing is actually having any effect or not. About the only thing we can say for sure is that as long as there are companies publishing content online and trying to appeal to advertisers, this debate will likely continue.

]]>At this point, almost everyone — online publishers and advertisers alike — agrees that raw pageviews are a poor measure of the value that a media outlet provides, but no one can figure out exactly what to replace them with. Some sites have chosen to focus on social sharing, while others are creating their own ways of measuring the actual time that a reader spends with a site’s content. Upworthy’s version of this metric is called “attention minutes,” and the company said Monday it has open-sourced the code so others can use it.

The need for a solid metric is fairly obvious: publishers of all kinds mostly rely on advertising, so they have to be able to show the brands, agencies and networks they deal with that they are reaching large numbers of the people they’re being paid to reach. The easiest ways to do that are pageviews and unique visitors, but both of these metrics are flawed to some extent — and so are raw clicks, likes and shares, as Upworthy points out in its blog post:

“Clicks and pageviews, long the industry standards, are drastically ill-equipped for the job. Even the share isn’t a surefire measure that the user has spent any time engaging with the content itself. It’s in everyone’s interest — from publishers to readers to advertisers — to move to a metric that more fully measures attention spent consuming content. In other words, the best way to answer the question is to measure what happens between the click and the share.”

Many people see social as the new SEO, but focusing on shares is flawed because — as Chartbeat co-founder and CEO Tony Haile has pointed out — the data shows virtually no correlation whatsoever between whether people share a link to a piece of content and whether they have actually read it, since many users are apparently happy to share links to things they haven’t spent any time with at all.

Trying to measure actual reader attention

So Upworthy and Chartbeat both have their own metrics: Upworthy calls its version “attention minutes” and Chartbeat calls its measurement “engaged time.” Although they use somewhat different methods, both track how far readers get through a page of content or a video before they click away, and use other signals to determine whether a page is simply open in a tab or whether the reader is actually involved in reading or watching the content. Interestingly enough, Upworthy says that Twitter does very well as a source when measured by total visitors, but somewhat less so when measured by actual engaged time or attention minutes.

Other sites such as YouTube, Medium and the Financial Times also focus on total time spent rather than just measuring page loads or unique visitors — and Medium said recently that it has even started compensating some of its writers based on the amount of time readers spend with their story. But not everyone believes that “time spent” is an effective metric: Gawker editorial director Joel Johnson, for example, told BuzzFeed recently that he would rather measure user satisfaction rather than just the amount of time they spent on a page:

“Perhaps someday, but that’s cart before horse, really; what we want to measure is user engagement through satisfaction. Maybe time-on-page will be part of that, maybe not.”

A Vox Media spokesperson told BuzzFeed that different types of content serve different purposes, and some may not be designed to hold a reader’s attention for a long time. “We don’t really care if someone spends five minutes on a TV schedule, game-time post because that isn’t the point… so time on site as an end-all, be-all metric doesn’t really work at the moment.” Haile, however, pointed out that the service’s “engaged time” is an aggregate over a period of a week or month, so posts that take a short time or a long time both have a place.